R THANGAPALAM Vs. GOVT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is appeal by the original petitioner against the order of the ld. Single Judge dismissing his petition in which he had challenged his non-selection as Personal Assistant (Administration) which is a promotional post from the category of Superintendents.

(2.) THE petitioner who was originally appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the Police Department on 15th June, 1957 was promoted as Upper Division Clerk (Assistant) on 1st June, 1961. He was inducted to the Special Branch, C. I. D. as Special Branch Assistant with effect from 31st December 1970. When he was on other duty as Special Branch Assistant in the Special Branch, C. I. D. , his name was considered by the State Promotion Board when a 'c'-list of Assistants fit for promotion as Superintendents was drawn. The name of the petitioner was included in the said 'c' list in 1974 and he was accordingly promoted as Superintendent in the same year by the order of the Inspector General of Police, dated 26th July, 1974.

(3.) THE Inspecter General of Police called for recommendation for appointment by transfer as Personal Assistant (Administration) for the year 1985-86 from the cadre of Superintendents. The petitioner claimed in the petition that though he was selected and recommended by the State Promotion Board, his name was omitted from the list by the state Government on the ground that he had not put in two years of service in the category of Superintendent/manager in the Ministerial Service employed in Police Department, though he was on deputation on other duty as Special Branch Assitant since the date of his promotion, that is, 26th July, 1974, without prejudice to his continuance as Special Branch Assistant. The petitioner claimed in the petition that though he was on other duty, having regard to r. 9 (b) and r. 23 (ii) (b) read with r. 36 (d) and r. 4 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules (hereinafter referred as Service Rules), the service rendered by the petitioner as Special Branch Assistant should be treated as equivalent to the service rendered in the category of Superintendent in the Police Department. In his affidavit, he particularly referred to G. O. Ms, No. 1885, Home, dated 11th July, 1957 in which the same Govt. had treated service rendered as Special Branch Assistant as equivalent to that of Superintendent/manager and by which promotions had been effected on that basis of certain Special Branch Assistants to the post of Personal Assistant (Administration) on the footing that the Special Branch Assistant had rendered qualifying service in the category of Superintendent. Thus, according to the petitioner, he had been deprived of promotion on an erroneous view of the rules.